Leandro Andrade was found guilty of breaking into a home, guilty of burglarizing a business and guilty of stealing 150 dollars worth of videotapes. Three strikes and he's in a California prison serving two life terms.

Leandro Andrade is Three-Striker; "I was never a violent person. I just had a drug problem."

None of his felonies involved violence. Same with Keith Barnard.  He’s serving 25 years-to-life for burglary, attempted burglary, and theft of 130 dollars’ worth of clothes.

"To keep me locked up for the rest of my life now is just a big waste of money."

 Lots of money, according to a new study that claims the ten-year-old law has not reduced crime and costs the state billions.

Bill Jones says it has saved billions.   He co-authored the Three Strikes law and claims crime in the state has gone down 46 percent.

Bill Jones says, "The lowest level of burglaries since 1957 and over 2 million fewer victims, which really is what 3 strikes focused on."

The study's authors at the Justice Policy Institute admit to being dedicated to ending society’s  reliance on incarceration, and think inmates without [sic] nonviolent convictions shouldn't suffer from Three Strikes.

Some prosecutors, like San Francisco District Attorney Kamela Harris, agree: "It's unfair, it's unreasonable and it's not a deterrent."

Judges and prosecutors have the option whether or not to use Three Strikes in nonviolent cases, and some maintain they are sending fewer nonviolent felons to prison for life imprisonment.   

Bill Jones says there are almost 100,000 fewer prisoners now than without Three Strikes.

“We built 19 new prisons prior to Three Strikes; other than the ones we funded before (19)94, we've built none since.”

A great deterrent or just unfair? This month it's been around ten years and there's no major movement to change it. 

Follow-up Notes

• The law known as "Three Strikes and You're Out," or simply “Three Strikes,” was passed by California voters in 1994.  Under this law, people who are convicted of three felonies—seriousor violent crimes—may be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.  The crimes that count as “strikes” include violent offenses such as murder, robbery, rape, and assault as well as nonviolent but serious crimes such as burglary and selling or manufacturing drugs. 

• Bill Jones, the author of the law, was California’s Secretary of State from 1995 to 2003.

• The law is controversial because it has caused some people who never committed violent crimes to be sent to prison for life.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the law is constitutional.

For more information, see the websites below:

• For a general explanation of mandatory sentencing laws similar to “Three Strikes,” see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
• You can find the Justice Policy Institute’s complete report criticizing the Three Strikes law at http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=423.
• For an opposing view, see “Three Strikes and You’re Out” at http://www.threestrikes.org/index.html.

Leandro Andrade and Keith Barnard are examples of men who committed three felonies and are now serving life in prison under California’s “Three Strikes” law.  However, the men’s crimes were not violent.  Keith Barnard says it is a waste of money to keep people like him locked up for the rest of their lives. 

Many people agree with him.  A new study by the Justice Policy Institute claims that the ten-year-old Three Strikes law has cost California billions of dollars, but it has not reduced crime.  The authors of the study believe that sending people to jail is not a good way to reduce crime, and they think that people who commit nonviolent crimes should not suffer from Three Strikes.

Some prosecutors agree that the law is unfair and unreasonable, and it does not deter crime.

 The author of the Three Strikes law, Bill Jones, disagrees.  According to Jones, Three Strikes has saved California billions of dollars, and crime in the state has gone down by 46 percent.  For example,  California now has the lowest level of burglaries since 1957.  Jones also says there are 2 million fewer crime victims and 100,000 fewer prisoners than without Three Strikes. He points out that California has not built any new prisons since the law was passed.

So, is the law a great deterrent or just unfair?  Judges can choose whether or not to use Three Strikes in nonviolent cases, and some say they are sending fewer nonviolent felons to prison for life.  After ten years, there is no major movement to change the law at this time.

Follow-up Notes

• The law known as "Three Strikes and You're Out," or simply “Three Strikes,” was passed by California voters in 1994.  Under this law, people who are convicted of three felonies—seriousor violent crimes—may be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.  The crimes that count as “strikes” include violent offenses such as murder, robbery, rape, and assault as well as nonviolent but serious crimes such as burglary and selling or manufacturing drugs. 

• Bill Jones, the author of the law, was California’s Secretary of State from 1995 to 2003.

• The law is controversial because it has caused some people who never committed violent crimes to be sent to prison for life.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the law is constitutional.

For more information, see the websites below:

• For a general explanation of mandatory sentencing laws similar to “Three Strikes,” see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
• You can find the Justice Policy Institute’s complete report criticizing the Three Strikes law at http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=423.
• For an opposing view, see “Three Strikes and You’re Out” at http://www.threestrikes.org/index.html.

I.  Introduction:  Two men serving life terms in California prisons under the state’s “three strikes” law

A.  Leandro Andrade

1.  Guilty of breaking into a home, burglarizing a business, and stealing videotapes

2.  Serving two life terms in prison

B.  Keith Barnard

1.  Guilty of burglary, attempted burglary, and theft of clothes

2.  Serving 25 years to life

II.  A new study by the Justice Policy Institute claims the 10-year-old law has not reduced crime but has cost the state billions of dollars.

A. The authors of the study think inmates with nonviolent convictions should not suffer from the 3-strikes law.

B.  Some prosecutors agree, saying the law is unfair, unreasonable, and not a deterrent.

III.  Bill Jones, author of the law, has the opposite view.  He says that under the 3-strikes law,

A.  California has saved billions of dollars.

B.  Crime has gone down 46%.

C.  California now has the lowest level of burglaries since 1957 and over 2 million fewer victims.

IV.  Judges and prosecutors have the option of using or not using the law in nonviolent cases.  Some are sending fewer nonviolent felons to prison for life.

V.  Bill Jones says there are almost 100,000 fewer prisoners now than without three strikes.

A.  California built 19 new prisons before the law.

B.  It has built no new prisons since the law went into effect.

VI.  Conclusion:  There is no major movement to change the law at this time.

© 2005-2006 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved
Literacyworks
Western/Pacific LINCS
All Rights Reserved